MaskRay added a comment. In D147844#4646633 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D147844#4646633>, @MaskRay wrote:
> FWIW: adding parentheses for expressions, such as `overflow = (4608 * 1024 * > 1024) ? 4608 * 1024 * 1024 : 0;`, and `results.reason = (actions & > _UA_SEARCH_PHASE) ? ... : ...`, looks unnatural and is too noisy to me. From quuxplusone: The first expression overflow = (4608 * 1024 * 1024) ? 4608 * 1024 * 1024 : 0; is a tautology; it is not possible for (4608 * 1024 * 1024) to be zero. (If it's signed integer overflow, it's UB, not zero; and the compiler knows this.) But if you make it defined by adding `u`, then IMO it's very little hardship to explicitly write the comparison to zero: overflow = (4608u * 1024 * 1024) != 0 ? 4608u * 1024 * 1024 : 0; // OK, no UB, no warning The second expression results.reason = (actions & _UA_SEARCH_PHASE) ? ... : ... should IMHO also be written as results.reason = (actions & _UA_SEARCH_PHASE) != 0 ? ... : ... but I think you would get good support if you proposed that the compiler should treat `&` as a "logical operator" in this specific case. This just means changing line 9312 to return OP->isComparisonOp() || OP->isLogicalOp() || (OP->getOpcode() == BO_And); Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D147844/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D147844 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
